Is there another option?
Unlike the dire predictions heard so often, Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria would not be the end of the State of Israel, nor would it mean the end of democratic governance in Israel.
By Moshe ArensAll those who morning, noon and night insist that the current status quo, with the Israel Defense Forces policing the Palestinian populated areas of Judea and Samaria, is unsustainable should be desperately searching for other arrangements that might improve on the present situation. If they are hoping that an agreement will be reached between the Israeli government and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that would open the way for such an improvement, they are likely to be sorely disappointed.
 |
IDF soldiers checking a Palestinian taxi driver on Route 443 in the West Bank, May 28, 2010. |
| Photo by: Reuters |
Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, does not recognize Abbas as its spokesman, and as for the Palestinian population in Judea and Samaria, their support for Abbas is questionable. In any case, he hardly seems to be in a position to make any commitments in his negotiations with Israel, or to implement any commitments he might undertake. His reticence to enter direct negotiations with Israel is a fairly good indication of his tenuous position. So if that is leading to a dead end, what then?
The Jordanian option has on occasion been raised as a promising approach. After all, most of Jordan's population is Palestinian. For 19 years, Judea and Samaria were part of Jordan, its population Jordanian citizens, and the geographic juxtaposition between Israel and Jordan should make delineating the border between the two countries in an agreement considerably easier than reaching a deal on a border between Israel and a Palestinian state that might be established in the area. There is only one problem - the Jordanians won't hear of it. They don't want to overload their security apparatus, which has been functioning quite effectively, by including another 1.5 million Palestinians within their borders.
The conventional wisdom, pronounced by many Israelis and Palestinians alike, is that in the absence of an agreement with the Palestinians, Israel will either eventually cease to be a democracy or cease to exist. This calamitous prognostication is worthy of some scrutiny.
What would happen if Israeli sovereignty were to be applied to Judea and Samaria, the Palestinian population there being offered Israeli citizenship? Those who, in Israel and abroad, consider the Israeli "occupation" of Judea and Samaria an unbearable evil should be greatly relieved by such a change that would free Israel of the burden of "occupation." If the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria are given the right to vote in Israeli elections, like the Palestinians currently living in Israel, Israel would not cease to be a democracy. Nor would it cease to exist, although its demography would change significantly. However, Israel would face the serious challenge of absorbing the Palestinian population in Judea and Samaria into the fabric of Israeli society. Can Israel be expected to meet such a challenge?
Israel already has a substantial minority population - Muslims, Christians, Druze and a small group of Circassians. The Druze and the Circassians can serve as an example of the successful integration of a minority group into Israeli society, mainly by virtue of their service in the IDF. With little assistance from the Israeli government, many of Israel's Christian citizens are gradually finding their way into Israeli society. It is Israel's Muslim minority, 17 percent of the country's population, that still has a long way to go before it feels at home in the State of Israel, enjoying not only equality of rights but also equality of opportunities.
Much of the blame for this rests on successive Israeli governments that have not taken effective action to integrate Israel's Muslim citizens. Very vocal Israeli Arab politicians, who spout anti-Israeli rhetoric at every opportunity that drowns out the voice of the silent majority of Israel's Muslim citizens, bear the rest of the responsibility for this unhappy state of affairs. This situation, in any case, needs urgent rectification.
Adding another 1.5 million Muslims, the population of Judea and Samaria, to Israel's Muslim population would of course make the situation considerably more difficult. Would a 30-percent Muslim minority in Israel create a challenge that would be impossible for Israeli society to meet? That is a question that Israeli politicians, and all Israelis - Jews and Arabs alike - need to ponder.
Unlike the dire predictions heard so often, Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria would not be the end of the State of Israel, nor would it mean the end of democratic governance in Israel. It would, however, pose a serious challenge to Israeli society. But that is equally true for the other options being suggested for dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This option of Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria merits serious consideration.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
I would sack people like Mark Regev and get Ran Gido (UK attache) to publicly speak for you simply for damage limitation purposes. Regev simply reminds me of Tariq Aziz whereas Ran Gidor said exactly same thing as Regev but in a more sensible (and acceptable) manner. I don't think Israel was right in this manner but i think it's worth sacking the 'old boys' to make way for more sensible opinion.
It is rather an interesting idea, and I am hearing this idea the second time this month, this first tiem being from Rovi Rivlin, the Knesset speaker. This idea should be looked at seriously and developed further. There maybe should bee a transition period in a form of autonomy. The idea of a two state solution is the idea of the elitist left who despise the arabs and look at them from above. I am happy that the israeli right is more liberal.
You haven't exactly made friends with your new neighbors. You reap what you sow.
Surprisingly I find myself in agreement. If Israel is so confident of its democractic nature and the nature of its society, then the one state solution would be a success, and the die hard fanatics would lose much of their support. If on the other hand Israel is a racist state then the situtation would be much as it is at the moment, except that Israel would be responsible for the wellbeing of the people and lost the figleaf that the PA has become.
I can assure you there would be nobody on the Arab side like a Mr. Arens to ponder himself at no end what to do with the jews. Was the U.S. to blame back in World War Two for incarcerating Japanese-American citizens for the duration of the war? Should they be blamed for not having integrated same Japanese?
The Isreali Govt for a change can take a different tack. It can be a good neighbor and implement the UN resolutions together with security guarantees from the US and EU. But then again, perhaps Lieberman and Natanyahu dont want peace? It is sad today to see the persecuted of the past become the oppressors of today.
Israel has only one choice - end the occupation. At that point Israel can choose to create one state with equal rights for all as other historically recent colonisers like the US, Canada, Australia etc. have done, or return to mandated borders to create a Jewish state and allow the Palestinians to have the rest of their country back where they can live in freedom. If Israel does not end the occupation then ultimately the One State solution will be forced upon them. The Palestinians have time, numbers and justice on their side and Israel has none of these things.
By whom? Just Israel? What about the Palestinians in the West Bank? And I'm sure they might have reservations about becoming part of the Arabs n Israel who are treated as second class citizens. What about Gaza? The arrogance is breathtaking.
you didnt ask whether those in the oPt would like to be a minority in their own country and to be intergrated into the Jewish state??
The tragedy of Israeli-thinking is to paint ourselves into corners where we convince ourselves that there is no alternative. As with the ill-fated misadventure this week - there are those who thought (before the event) that there was no alternative. I would imagine that even they, now, realize that even doing nothing, is an alternative worthy of consideration. Too many of our wars began because our leaders thought there was no alternative. I would ban taking any action, unless at least three (different) alternatives were proposed. If there is only one option on the table, it should be rejected out-of-hand.
Moshe Arens deserves to be congratulated. Colonel Ghadafi has been speking about "IsraPhilistin" for a long time the same idea that Moshe Arens seems to love so much also. Absolutely amazing! It would be funny if it wouldn't be so sad, We all are the decendents of Abraham after all, we should live in peace. What a farce!
Problem 1: 1.5 million is a very low estimate for the population of Judea and Samaria. The CIA World Factbook gives it at nearly 2.5 million. Incorporate those, and Israel becomes closer to 40% than 30% Arab. Problem 2: Gaza. If one incorporates Judea and Samaria, the pressure to do the same with Gaza would be overwhelming - since it cannot be viable as an independent state. In which case you add another 1.4 million Arabs (again, the source for the figure is the CIA), and Israel is heading for an Arab majority.
All over the world peoples are trying to set up their own states and break away from the state in which they find themselves. If Moshe Arens believes that the situation in Israel will be improved by incorporating the Palestinians into Israel, why try to do it immediately? Woudn't it be easier to create two states NOW which sometime in the FUTURE, if they have succeeded in living together in peace and harmony, may merge into a Greater Israel, provided both peoples support such a merger.